Thank you for the question.
The real challenge for us is that if the terms in this agreement were the same terms we had proposed in the U.K. bilateral agreement, we could live with them. That's largely because we're talking about free and fair trade that will allow agricultural products to go into Ukraine and will allow us to sell our products in Ukraine. The U.K. bilateral, at the moment, is not going to increase access for Canadian pork. At the same time, the U.K. is asking for increased access for cheese coming to Canada.
This agreement, frankly, would be a model that we'd love to see going into the future. From our perspective, it's vital that we have access to these kinds of markets in a free and fair trade model. We think that we'll be competitive in Ukraine, and we think there's an opportunity for us to do more trade with Ukraine. We know that food security is a crucial issue for Ukraine at this exact moment.
From our perspective, if this committee were studying a U.K. trade agreement at this moment and it had the same provisions for agriculture based on science, we wouldn't have opposition to a U.K. trade deal with the same kinds of provisions. We know that Canada is capable of negotiating trade provisions that will allow free and fair trade between our countries, and we'd love to see that kind of model be extended to other bilateral trade agreements.
That's why we're in support of this agreement. We think a science-based model that will allow free and fair trade will help importers and exporters. Obviously, from the Pork Council's perspective, we're focused on exports. We understand that Britain would love to export cheese into Canada. However, until they're going to be willing to accept agricultural products in return, I'm not sure why we'd be motivated to allow the U.K. to impose those kinds of non-science based terms on our trade agreements. That's why we're supportive—